Local attorney thinks Governor Inslee ‘going too far’ with tough new DUI law

Burien lawyer Joe Breidenbach, known widely as “DUI Joe,” believes Gov. Jay Inslee is going too far with the tough new proposed law he unveiled last week following three local deaths in tragic DUI-related accidents.

Legislators introduced the governor’s proposed law changes on April 16.

It would require an arrest on the first offense and mandatory jail time if offenders don’t enroll in a sobriety program after a second arrest. The proposal sets mandatory minimum jail times for second and third offenses, but offenders can avoid jail on the second offense if they enroll in a substance abuse program that requires them to take frequent breathalyzer tests, The Associated Press reported. The bill would mandate installment of interlock devices on cars after someone is charged, rather than after being convicted, unless an exception is made by a court. Some observers suggest that would not be constitutional.

On a third offense, offenders would be sentenced to 364 days in jail and would prohibit them from purchasing alcohol for 10 years.

The governor said it “the right thing to do” and would be the “most aggressive, the most effective, the most ambitious program to reduce drunk driving on our roads.”

“First, I would like to say that I saddened by the recent deaths of Judy and Dennis Schulte and Morgan Williams which allegedly occurred as the result of accidents involving an impaired driver. Loss of life is always a tragedy.”

But he said there is a “big difference between driving under the influence and vehicular homicide. Sanctions imposed for criminal activity should reflect the seriousness of the crime and not what is the current politically correct bandwagon for politicians.”

Breidenbach says state law makes a criminal offense the unlawful display of any weapon.

“You would be charged with something much worse if you actually intimidated somebody with a weapon or fired the weapon. Unlawful display is a gross misdemeanor with a maximum jail sentence of 364 days in jail.

“Unlike a DUI there are no minimum sanctions for unlawful display of a weapon,” Breidenbach said. “Unlike a DUI there are no increased minimum sanctions for a second offense.

“Like a DUI, this kind of behavior certainly has the potential for developing into something much more serious like assault or a homicide,” he said. “Actually I think that unlawful display of a firearm is far more likely to end in injury of death than a DUI.”

Some statistics
Breidenbach said the King County Website listed 178 homicides Washington in 2010, with the leading cause being firearms.

In March, 2012, a drunk driver crashed into a utility pole on SW 152nd Street in Burien.

“On May 30, 2012 a man walked into the Café Racer coffee shop in the University District and allegedly gunned down five people, killing four,” Breidenbach said. “The same man then allegedly made his way downtown, where he killed a woman in a parking lot before stealing her car.

“To the best of my knowledge there was no great movement by Washington lawmakers to increase the penalties for the unlawful display of a weapon as a result of this incident,” Breidenbach said. “There were 26 homicides in Seattle alone in 2012 but it seemed to go unnoticed by Washington lawmakers.

“The Washington State Patrol has been quoted as saying that there are about 40,000 DUI arrests each year in the state of Washington. Rep. Roger Goodman of Kirkland has been quoted as saying that in 2011 there were 454 traffic accident fatalities, in which 199 accidents the driver was impaired with either drugs or alcohol.”

Breidenbach also quoted the National Highway Traffic Safety as reporting that for every DUI violator arrested, there are between 500 and 2000 undetected intoxicated violations.

In Washington state, he says, if there are 40,000 DUI arrests and 500 undetected violations, then there are 2 million undetected DUI incidents.

“This would mean … about one chance of a fatality per 10,0000 incidents of impaired driving,” Breidenbach said, or one fatality per 400,000 if you have 2,000 undetected DUI violations.

Fear is deterrent
Breidenbach said the National Highway Safety Administration believes the deterrence to DUI is based on the driving public’s fear of being arrested.

“I do not think that there is that much fear of being arrested if you believe that the chances of being arrested are between 1 in 500 and 1 in 2000, regardless of what the penalties are,” he said. “Increasing the penalties for those convicted does not increase the chances of being arrested. The only way to increase the chances of being arrested it to put more patrolmen on the street.”

“A six month sentence for DUI is not any scarier than a 30 day sentence for someone who does not think that they are going to get caught. What about someone who gets a DUI when they are 22 years old and then a second DUI when they are 70 years old?

“What about someone who gets a DUI when they are 22 years old and then a second DUI when they are 70 years old after taking a prescription medication?

Breidenbach then wonders about someone who gets a DUI because they were allegedly affected by antidepressant medication that they were taking as prescribed by their doctor.

The Washington State Department of Licensing says DUI (driving under the influence) doesn’t just mean alcohol, but “refers to operating a vehicle while affected by alcohol, drugs, or both. This applies to both legal and illegal drugs, including prescription medication and over-the-counter drugs.”

Comments

I feel that if you are told by the court to put a device in your car that measures whether you have or have not been drinking, then there is nothing wrong with the court affixing that device so that you cannot simply say, “Okay” and walk away without doing it. I believe that one should do what a judge says to do. Obviously a number of people don’t do this so I don’t think there is anything wrong with the court doing it for them. The question here isn’t about firearms. It is about driving impaired. The firearms arguments are another story entirely and deserve their own page.

This is still not as stringent a law as the DUI law in California. I totally disagree with DUI Joe. This law is needed to prevent irresponsible people from drinking and operating a lethal piece of machinery when they are under the influence of by far he most insidious and widely abused in America today.
Washington has been allowing multiple DUI repeaters to get off with a slap on the wrist for way too long!

The weapon display comparison is a red herring that doesn’t hold water as an analogy.Closer would be something like reckless discharge of a fireare (I don’t know if there is actually such a thing but there must be something close). That would be where one is choosing to directly endanger others, just like choosing to drive drunk.

If a driver chooses to drive impaired and makes it home safely he made the same original decision as one who chooses to drive impaired and causes an accident. The problem is the poor decision and the result is just a matter of luck. It is the decision that needs more punishment, not necesarily the result, if we want to deter drunk drivers.

I don’t believe the stastics are used in context. If we are to belive a driver only gets caught for driving drunk one time in 500, those with multiple violations within one year have to be getting drunk several times a day. It makes no sense. Those convicted of DUI are usually 2 or 3 times the legal definition of drunk driving at .08 %. It seems more likely that they drink to a level of very serious impairment and their actions are more obvious to the police. Those nearer the limit can drive well enough to avoid detection, and accidents, most of the time. Therefore, it seems repeat offenders who get caught are a much greater risk because they are significantly more impaired. This is why the DUI itself needs stronger penalties.

The common anti-anything argument is “it goes too far”. You can sound like you support the general idea you actually oppose and you don’t have to define the point up to which is not too far.

It should be zero tolerance. The law leaves too much open to interpretation. There are too many variables, how much have you ate, how tired you are, how much you weigh are all factors. An officer can arrest you if you show signs of impairment under .08. Zero percent alcohol makes it simple. I think the blow n go ignition devices should be in every vehicle. I believe if it detects any alcohol it won’t allow the car to start. It puts dui Joe out of business and frees up jail space for real criminals. It’s the only solution to get drunks off the roads. It would cost too much you say? How much is a life worth? Your wife or husband, mom or dad or child. How much?

Why does this lawyer get so much press on this blog? Of course he’s going to say this.
There are plenty of people out there with agendas and opinions who are trying to help people.
I am offended and annoyed that this selfish drivel. Maybe in the courtroom it works to compare apples to oranges, but not out here in the real world. Let’s get these laws changed, start holding drunk drivers accountable and put people like ‘DUI Joe’ out of business